ArticleJTCVS open2026
The choice of mitral valve surgery type and mid-term outcomes in patients up to 70 years of age: Results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.
Article in JTCVS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Mitral valve replacement is indicated when mitral valve repair is not feasible. Prosthesis choice remains controversial, especially in patients aged less than 70 years, and despite existing guidelines, all too often even in those aged less than 65 years. This study investigated long-term survival and adverse outcomes after mechanical mitral valve replacement versus biological mitral valve replacement in a nationwide Austrian cohort, also including mitral valve repair as the control group. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Austrian insurance data. It included 3520 patients aged 70 years or less who underwent mitral heart valve surgery between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020. The primary end point was all-cause death; secondary end points included time to major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and bleeding other than intracerebral hemorrhage. These were analyzed via time-to-event analysis, including Cox proportional hazards regression and cause-specific hazards with inverse probability of treatment weighting, adjusting for demographic and clinically relevant confounders. Results: Among 3520 patients, 413 underwent mechanical mitral valve replacement, 487 underwent biological mitral valve replacement, and 2620 underwent mitral valve repair. Estimated 10-year survival was 71.6% after mechanical mitral valve replacement, 63.2% after biological mitral valve replacement, and 75.9% after mitral valve repair. Compared with mechanical mitral valve replacement, biological mitral valve replacement was associated with a higher risk of death beyond 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.11-3.39, Conclusions: In patients aged 70 years or less undergoing mitral valve replacement, mechanical mitral valve replacement provides superior long-term survival compared with biological mitral valve replacement. These findings may support mechanical valves as the preferred option in patients aged less than 70 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.